This Court dismissed a prayer to condone a delay of 3121 days in refiling a civil appeal. The Judge held that the proposed reasons involving retyping and translating documents were insufficient due diligence. Both the condonation application and the second appeal were dismissed on grounds of excessive delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BALWAN SINGH AND ANOTHER ..... Appellants Through: Mr. H.P. Chakravorty and Mr. A.K. Bhakta, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Subhash Tanwar, CGSC with Mr. Gokul Sharma, GP, Mr. Ashish Chaudhary and Mr. Sandeep Mishra, Advs. for R-1 Mr. Angant Singh, Adv. for R-3
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T (ORAL) % 10.04.2024
CM APPL.21435.2024 (for condonation of delay of 3121 days in refilling)
1. This appeal has been preferred with a delay of 3121 days.
2. The final judgment and order under challenge in this second appeal was passed by the learned First Appellate Court on 16 January 2014 in Regular Civil Appeal 19/2013 and 5 March 2014 in Review Application 20/2014.
3. This appeal was initially filed on 31 May 2014.
4. The appeal was returned with defects, and was refiled for the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHAR AN HARI SHANKAR Signing Da te:12 .04.2024 13:18
Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR RSA 43/2023 Signing Date:12.0 4.20 24 13:20
Page 1 of 3
first time on 26 April 2018, i.e. after four years. The appeal again returned with defects and refiled almost five years after that on 16 February 2023.
5. Delay in refiling is ordinarily treated with leniency by this Court. That, however, does not mean that the Court can condone ten years delay in refiling without due course.
6. In the present application, the only ground that is taken is that certain documents were required to be retyped. It is stated that after the matter was returned with objections in the first instance, it was seen that there were about 70 to 80 pages, which had to be typed. Apparently, it took four years to type the said 70 to 80 pages.
7. Thereafter, it is stated that it was found that further objections were raised regarding requirement of filing fair typed copy of annexures and English translation of certain vernacular documents. This, again, appears to have taken five more years.
8. Resort to the legal process requires at least a bare minimum of due diligence on the part of the person approaching the Court. Four years on one occasion and five years in the next occasion, can hardly be sought to be explained away on the ground that certain documents were required to be typed or translated.
9. No ground exists to condone the delay of 3121 days in refiling the present appeal.
Signature Not Verified 10. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR RSA 43/2023 Signing Date:12.0 4.20 24 13:20
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHAR Page 2 of 3 AN HARI SHANKAR Signing Da te:12 .04.2024 13:18
RSA 43/2023
11. The appeal is also dismissed on the ground of delay in refiling.
CM APPL. 8964/2023 (Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC), CM APPL. 8965/2023 (for condonation of delay of 45 days in filing) and CM APPL. 21435/2024 (for condonation of delay of 3121 days in refiling)
12. These applications do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
APRIL 10, 2024 rb
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHAR Page 3 of 3 AN HARI SHANKAR Signing Da te:12 .04.2024 13:18
Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR RSA 43/2023 Signing Date:12.0 4.20 24 13:20
1 issue framed by the court
Whether delay of 3121 days in refiling the appeal can be condoned on the ground of difficulty in typing and translating documents.
Balwan Singh
Union of India
C. Hari Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
